Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Avatree]

I can't speak for french critics but not agreeing with the #metoo movement does not mean you love rape. You should go back to school and learn how to do mental gymnastics properly.

 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Avatree

[lorddemaxus]

10 minutes ago, Avatree said:

I can't speak for french critics but not agreeing with the #metoo movement does not mean you love rape. You should go back to school and learn how to do mental gymnastics properly.

 

Lol I said more than that but ok, stick to that one point.

[Avatree]

4 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Lol I said more than that but ok, stick to that one point.

I have no idea whether french critics still care about roman polanski or luc besson - Luc Besson hasn't been involved with anything critically acclaimed in years. Also claiming luc besson is a rapist is a bit of a stretch, you might find his age gap relationships questionable / repugnant but its not the same as rape and if a critic says they liked Valerian and the City of a Thousand planets then that doesn't make them a rape apologiset.

[Firepower]

4 hours ago, The Futurist said:

Seems US critics (french critics panned it harshly) and audiences are seing a completely different film.

That's exactly what I expected a year ago. It was always most likely to be US critics/filmtwitter thing.

2 hours ago, lorddemaxus said:

And they also love pretentious posturing (no wonder they LOVED Joker). Not surprised they hate this movie.

A lot of people LOVED Joker, not just french critics lol, it was the least pretentious movie possible for a social drama. You are just angry that filmtwitter (aka US critics and all those insane groups) and pretty much the rest of the world have completely different visions of what good/bad movie is.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Firepower

[lorddemaxus]

44 minutes ago, Firepower said:

That's exactly what I expected a year ago. It was always most likely to be US critics/filmtwitter thing.

A lot of people LOVED Joker, not just french critics lol, it was the least pretentious movie possible for a social drama. You are just angry that filmtwitter (aka US critics and all those insane groups) and pretty much the rest of the world have completely different visions of what good/bad movie is.

Guy, I know you expected this to be a "filmtwitter" film a year ago because it was a female led film and I know that you already hate it because its a female led film. And you are literally agreeing with the forum's biggest troll lol. Either way, the movie has the same rating most action blockbusters do in france (all of which the French critics don't like because they prefer pretentious films).

 

Also Joker is pretentious as hell. It's a whole load of posturing with nothing meaningful underneath it. It's the definition of pretentious. It never actually hits you with the hard facts that actual social dramas that deal with similar themes like a Ken Loach film hits you with. I doubt you would even care about the film if it didn't have the Joker name behind it.

Edited February 6, 2020 by lorddemaxus

[lorddemaxus]

3 hours ago, Avatree said:

I have no idea whether french critics still care about roman polanski or luc besson - Luc Besson hasn't been involved with anything critically acclaimed in years. Also claiming luc besson is a rapist is a bit of a stretch, you might find his age gap relationships questionable / repugnant but its not the same as rape and if a critic says they liked Valerian and the City of a Thousand planets then that doesn't make them a rape apologiset.

Luc Beeson has had a lot of allegations surrounding him (considering that its more than one and looking at his, I don't doubt them). And althought they really haven't awarded Luc Beeson anything (because he hasn't made a good film in ages), they do consistently throw awards at Polanski like he's their pet.

[Firepower]

57 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Guy, I know you expected this to be a "filmtwitter" film a year ago because it was a female led film and I know that you already hate it because its a female led film.

Aliens and Kill Bill are in my top 10 favourite films, Aliens #1, so you are wrong. I'd be more than happy with good female-led film. You just want a filmtwitter version of female led film like Charlie Angels reboot or Ghostbusters (2016).

57 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Also Joker is pretentious as hell. It's a whole load of posturing with nothing meaningful underneath it. It's the definition of pretentious. It never actually hits you with the hard facts that actual social dramas that deal with similar themes like a Ken Loach film hits you with. I doubt you would even care about the film if it didn't have the Joker name behind it.

No, the movie has simple and effective message, it's not subtle, it doesn't try to be deeper than it is (despite some people looking for things the movie doesn't even try to say), it actually hits you with hard facts, it's well edited and paced without all that bs with big pauses during dialogues or characters staring at something for 5 minutes for no reason. It's what it is. There's really nothing pretentious about it. By the way, pretentious movies rarely resonate with general auidence, it was proved many many times.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Firepower

[Madhuvan]

Joker is one of the most pretentious movie of this decade. 

 

[MrGlass2]

Not liking the anti-intellectual vibe here... Just because Joker is one of the most acclaimed and meaningful movies of the year, and will be remembered as the defining film of 2019 along with Parasite, that doesn't make it "pretentious".

[Madhuvan]

1 minute ago, MrGlass2 said:

Not liking the anti-intellectual vibe here... Just because Joker is one of the most acclaimed and meaningful movies of the year, and will be remembered as the defining film of 2019 along with Parasite, that doesn't make it "pretentious".

Told you, Joker is one of the most pretentious movie of this decade. 

This post proves that. 

[lorddemaxus]

Just now, Firepower said:

Aliens and Kill Bill are in my top 10 fabourite films, Aliens #1, so you are wrong. I'd be more than happy with good female-led film. You just want a filmtwitter version of female led film like Charlie Angels reboot or Ghostbusters (2016).

Lol, you sound like Geeks+Gamers. And you mean I want a filmtwitter version like the Ghostbusters I gave a 2/10? What does a filmtwitter version even mean? 

 

Quote

No, the movie has simple and effective message, it's not subtle, it doesn't try to be deeper than it is (despite some people looking for things the movie doesn't even try to say), it actually hits you with hard facts, it's well edited and paced without all that bs with big pauses during dialogues or characters staring it something for 5 minutes for no reason. It's what it is. There's really nothing pretentious about it. By the way, pretentious movies don't resonate with general auidence, especially like this, it was proved many many times.

What hard facts does it hit you with? None of what happens in the movie is remotely real but it acts like it's a realistic look into how people like Arthur Fleck are treated. It borders on melodrama. It clearly wants to say something more complex than "rich people bad" (the tone of the movie clearly wants you treat it like that) but all it does is end up saying "rich people bad". Also pretentious movies do resonate with general audiences. It gives them an illusion of watching something complex and real when they really aren't and makes it really easy for the audience to eat it up. 

[cax16]

I must be weird cause I loved joker and can’t wait to see BOP. 

[Madhuvan]

1 minute ago, cax16 said:

I must be weird cause I loved joker and can’t wait to see BOP. 

You are a good soul. 

We are the one actually mad. 

Edited February 6, 2020 by Madhuvan

[lorddemaxus]

2 minutes ago, cax16 said:

I must be weird cause I loved joker and can’t wait to see BOP. 

No, people can love Joker. I didn't even particularly dislike the film but I seriously hate the Geeks+Gamer-esque points that Firepower is using when talking about both movies.

[Avatree]

"pretentious" is not a great term to describe any movie because it completely depends on whether you enjoyed it. 

 

If a film tries to be smart and you don't like it = pretentious

If a film tries to be smart and you do like it = not pretentious

 

So if you disagree on whether you like the film of course you'll disagree on its pretentiousness. pointless argument.

[cax16]

3 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

No, people can love Joker. I didn't even particularly dislike the film but I seriously hate the Geeks+Gamer-esque points that Firepower is using when talking about both movies.

Lol I get what you’re saying, I was only kidding around. But honestly  I don’t know why you guys engage with some of the people on this site who act that way. It’s just not worth your time. 

[Firepower]

10 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Lol, you sound like Geeks+Gamers. And you mean I want a filmtwitter version like the Ghostbusters I gave a 2/10? What does a filmtwitter version even mean? 

Well, you sounded like the guy who would give Ghostbusters (2016) a positive review only because of women. Filmtwitter means agenda pushing/agenda over quality aka most US critics and loud insane groups on twitter.

8 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

What hard facts does it hit you with?

That you should treat people around you better, especially those with disabilities. You can say it's obvious, but people often forget that and I think it was an effective reminder.

12 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

It clearly wants to say something more complex than "rich people bad" (the tone of the movie clearly wants you treat it like that) but all it does is end up saying "rich people bad".

But it's not about class warfare, I don't why some people think it is. This aspect is just a background to put lead character in specific circumstances. In reality people who treated Arthur like shit were both poor and rich. Arthur wasn't even that poor judging by his appartment and it took place in 80s.

18 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:

Also pretentious movies do resonate with general audiences. It gives them an illusion of watching something complex and real when they really aren't and makes it really easy for the audience to eat it up. 

It actually sounds like Nolan, it's true, those movie do exist. But this movie is simple and straightforward, there's no place to create that kind of illusion.

[Firepower]

14 minutes ago, Avatree said:

"pretentious" is not a great term to describe any movie because it completely depends on whether you enjoyed it. 

 

If a film tries to be smart and you don't like it = pretentious

If a film tries to be smart and you do like it = not pretentious

 

So if you disagree on whether you like the film of course you'll disagree on its pretentiousness. pointless argument.

I don't know if you're trolling or not, but it's kinda true.

[Avatree]

3 minutes ago, Firepower said:

Well, you sounded like the guy who would give Ghostbusters (2016) a positive review only because of women. Filmtwitter means agenda pushing/agenda over quality aka most US critics and loud insane groups on twitter.

That you should treat people around you better, especially those with disabilities. You can say it's obvious, but people often forget that and I think it was an effective reminder.

But it's not about class warfare, I don't why some people think it is. This aspect is just a background to put lead character in specific circumstances. In reality people who treated Arthur like shit were both poor and rich. Arthur wasn't even that poor judging by his appartment and it took place in 80s.

It actually sounds like Nolan, it's true, those movie do exist. But this movie is simple and straightforward, there's no place to create that kind of illusion.

There's no such thing as "Agenda over quality", because if the "agenda" is important to you in a film, then it is part of the quality of the film and your perception of it. 

 

For example, many people found that Black Panther and Captain Marvel really resonated with them because of their race or their gender, seeing black characters or female characters made the film so much more powerful and impactful. That is part of the quality of the film for them.

 

For you and me as white males it maybe didn't have the same impact, but just because the way you perceive a film is different from someone else's view of a film, doesn't mean that they are lieing or making up opinions just to push an agenda.

[Firepower]

17 minutes ago, Avatree said:

There's no such thing as "Agenda over quality", because if the "agenda" is important to you in a film, then it is part of the quality of the film and your perception of it. 

 

For example, many people found that Black Panther and Captain Marvel really resonated with them because of their race or their gender, seeing black characters or female characters made the film so much more powerful and impactful. That is part of the quality of the film for them.

 

For you and me as white males it maybe didn't have the same impact, but just because the way you perceive a film is different from someone else's view of a film, doesn't mean that they are lieing or making up opinions just to push an agenda.

No, that's bs, sorry. If "booo white male dude" is why you gave any movie 1/10, then, well, you need help. This is exactly what "agenda over quality" is, when you totally ignore the fact that movie in question is really well made across the board or vice versa and judge it for some political bs. Those people confuse watching movies with doing politics and they want so hard to be political journalists. That's exactly why I stopped paying any attention to US critics. I can disagree with movie's political points/message, but I have zero problems with that if it's actually well made. "Agenda" has nothing to do with quality or its perception.

 

I honestly don't understand how CM could resonate with anyone because there are so much better movies about strong female leads, but whatever.

Edited February 6, 2020 by Firepower